There was an article in Black Belt magazine this year about a University in the USA that done a study on who punched harder (P4P), karateka or boxers. Am trying to find it. Anyone else knows of it let us know.

Quote:Boxing hands better the Karate hands poll. How many believe and train that boxing hands are better then Karate hands in the street?

That is what the thread is about. You stated what you would do against a bocxer in a MMA competition. Why not just say what you would do against a karateka in a MMA tourney too? It would be just as relevant. If you want to discuss it that is cool but it would be better suited to a seperate thread. We are talking about a preferance for striking between boxing and karate for real life situations. Not how to stop a boxer in MMA comp.

To be fair think most of us on here including me have drifted a little from the threads topic, its just you really went one step to the left.

Quote:Ditto what There was an article in Black Belt magazine this year about a University in the USA that done a study on who punched harder (P4P), karateka or boxers. Am trying to find it. Anyone else knows of it let us know.

I dont think it can be said that one is better than the other for use in the street. The training in karate and boxing benefit each other. Maybe if both were trained?

Interesting. I am also trying to find the survey

IN the uk there is a very large gypsy based bare knuckle boxing scene.

I train with both boxing gloves and MMA gloves. You have to modify how you hit when you're not wrapping your hands (in terms of power and the duration of combos) but with or without gloves, it's still boxing. The delivery system of boxing doesn't change just because you're training with or without gloves.

If you train boxing for the purposes of self-defense which include eye strikes (with the fingers or thumbs) and open hand shots - it's still boxing.

I guess what we're looking at here comes down to whether you see this debate in terms of skill (boxer comes out on top) or potential (karate has advantage). Then it becomes a "style vs. style" thing which always sucks. As we know, the more capable person will always have the advantage.

Assuming the boxer doesn't train karate and the karateka doesn't train boxing, I'm STILL putting my money on the boxer 9 times out of 10. The boxer simply is a tougher animal. He takes punishment constantly, learning to absorb it and even more importantly, learns to dish it out. He devlops the instinctive counter punch, has incredible timing and other attributes developed for fighting. There is NO stop-action when HE spars and no one is pulling their punches.

This isn't to say that the Karateka cannot develop those same skills and attributes. On average though, this is just the simple truth.

Seeing blood in a boxing gym is a typical day at the office. Seeing it in a karate school means, "there's been an accident". Think about that. It speaks volumes.

Again, there are always exceptions to the rule. It comes down to how one trains, always. There are so many karate schools now that are so fearful of people getting hurt, being sued, students dropping out, women and children attending, etc., that they just don't train hard-core. That doesn't happen at the "East Side Gym" folks (or insert your own friendly neighborhood boxing gym here).

I guess what we're looking at here comes down to whether you see this debate in terms of skill (boxer comes out on top) or potential (karate has advantage). Then it becomes a "style vs. style" thing which always sucks.